Preview
RETURN DATE: MAY 11, 2021
NANCY BURTON SUPERIOR COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
V. OF STAMFORD-NORWALK
AT STAMFORD
DAVID PHILIP MASON
ELINORE CARMODY
DENNIS GIBBON
SUSAN WINTERS
JULIA PEMBERTON, FIRST SELECTMAN
TOWN OF REDDING, CONNECTICUT
TOWN OF REDDING, REDDING CT
MARK O’DONNELL, CHIEF, POLICE
DEPARTMENT OF REDDING,
CONNECTICUT (Individually and in
His Official Capacity)
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
BRYAN HURLBURT, COMMISSIONER,
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE (Individually and in
His Official Capacity)
CHARLES DELLAROCCO, (Individually
And in His Official Capacity as Animal
Control Officer of the Connecticut
Department of Agriculture)
BUILDING DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF
REDDING, CONNECTICUT
HEALTH DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF
REDDING, CONNECTICUT
POLICE DEPT., TOWN OF REDDING CT APRIL 5, 2021
COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff Nancy Burton has resided for 35 years at 147 Cross Highway in
Redding, Connecticut.
2 Plaintiff is a former reporter for The Associated Press, an author and a book
editor; and for some 20 years, she maintained a successful practice of primarily
pro bono public-interest law in Connecticut in the area of environmental law.
Beginning on or about 2008, plaintiff with others initiated the Mothers Milk Project
to collect samples of goat and human milk for independent laboratory analysis
for the presence of radioisotopes routinely released into the environment by the
Millstone and Indian Point nuclear power plants; the project was initiated after
plaintiff became of aware of state government records that revealed that Katie
the Goat, who resided five miles downwind of Millstone in Waterford,
Connecticut, produced milk with excessively high levels of inter alia strontium-90
and strontium-89, both deadly carcinogens particularly harmful to women,
children and human embryos and fetuses.
Plaintiff adopted Katie the Goat and brought her to live at her Redding home,
where plaintiff continued the Mothers Milk Project to test Katie’s milk, and that of
her progeny, for the presence of radioisotopes; various samples revealed the
presence of strontium-90 and strontium-89 in the milk produced by Katie the
Goat while she grazed in Redding, as reported in detail in an article titled “The
nuclear safety debate hits home” published in the Connecticut Post, Stamford
Advocate and Danbury News-Times newspapers on July 19, 2011, including
concentrations of deadly carcinogen strontium-89 of 2.1 picocuries per liter and
.4 picocuries per liter.
Other sampling by the Mothers Milk Project revealed a concentration of 3.3
picocuries per liter of strontium-89 in human breast milk collected in 2009 in
Orange County, New York in the Hudson River Valley downwind of Indian Point
and 5 picocuries per liter of strontium-89 in milk collected from a goat grazing in
Dutchess County, New York downwind of Indian Point.
Plaintiff reported this information to health and environmental authorities in
Connecticut, who took no action although required to undertake such
environmental sampling of goat milk for the presence of radioisotopes dispersed
by nuclear power plants pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §22a-135(a)(4).
The State of Connecticut per its Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection (“DEEP”) and Department of Agriculture (“DOAG”) has continuously
and repeatedly refused to do so in violation of the law.
The failure of the State of Connecticut to monitor milk taken from goats grazing
downwind of Millstone and Indian Point robs the public - particularly mothers and
their embryos, fetuses and young children — of governmental protection from a
known health hazard of consequence and shields the nuclear industry from
government surveillance of the true public health dangers and consequences of
routine, let alone emergency, operations of Millstone and Indian Point.
Earlier sampling of milk collected by DEEP from goats grazing within two miles of
Millstone have revealed dangerous concentrations of radioisotopes, including
strontium-90 and strontium-89.
10. Strontium-90 has a half-life of about 30 years, meaning that it takes a period of
30 years before half the radioactivity in the sample has decayed.
11, Strontium-89, in contrast, is a reliable indicator of the presence of nuclear power
plant releases of radioactivity into the environment during routine operations; it
has a half-life of approximately 50 days, meaning that if strontium-89 is detected
in a goat milk sample, the strontium-89 was released from a nuclear fission event
recently and not far away because otherwise it would evade detection and
measurement.
12. The Mothers Milk Project is dedicated to inter alia development of a scientific
database to monitor and track dispersal of radioactivity routinely released by
Millstone and Indian Point and to correlate such information with a database of
incidences of cancer, diseases of the immune system, premature deaths, birth
defects, genetic mutations, miscarriages and other serious and often fatal
outcomes of human and animal exposure to radioactivity routinely released by
Millstone and Indian Point in order to motivate the government of the State of
Connecticut to take appropriate action to eliminate such routine radioactivity
releases to the air.
13.At the same time, Millstone routinely releases radioactive waste materials into
the Long Island Sound and the public beach zones surrounding Millstone in East
Lyme (including Niantic) and Waterford, including Hole-in-the-Wall Beach and
Pleasure Beach; it is well known in such communities that clusters of brain
cancer incidences, birth defects, breast cancer, lung cancer, miscarriages and
many other fatal diseases occur in populations residing in the vicinity of Millstone
and such popular public recreation areas.
14. The State of Connecticut actively impedes and frustrates public awareness of
Millstone’s routine releases of radioactive and toxic chemical materials into the
Long Island Sound at such location.
15. Indeed, in a recent decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court, officially released
on January 21, 2021, the state’s highest court misled the public about such
radioactive releases by characterizing them as “alleged” releases when, e.g., the
record in the case is replete with data of Millstone’s actual and admitted releases
of radioactive materials to the Long Island Sound via its “quarry cut,” including a
report in evidence submitted to the federal government by Millstone’s owners
and operators that during a recent five-year period Millstone released 1.74
million gallons (145 millicuries) of fission and activation products (“radwaste”) to
the Long Island Sound, a figure shortly to be increased by 9.1%. Other reports
submitted by Millstone’s owners and operators admitted catching a fish in Niantic
Bay (an estuary of the Long Island Sound) contaminated with cesium-137, a
carcinogen the Millstone personnel admitted was released during routine
Millstone operations. Medical experts have linked the radioactive contamination
of Niantic Bay by Millstone routine operations to the near-fatal medical condition
of a boy born to a mother who routinely swam in Niantic Bay during her
pregnancy, unaware of its radioactive contamination. See plaintiffs “Motion for
Reconsideration En Banc” dated February 8, 2021, as filed in Nancy Burton v.
Regina McCarthy, SC 20466, pages 6-7.
16. Katie the Goat was diagnosed with terminal thoracic cancer in 2012; plaintiff took
Katie, who had become a goat celebrity championing an anti-nuclear platform at
rallies across the state, on a farewell tour to the White House, 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC, on March 11, 2012, the one-year
anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe.
17.Prior to such tour, plaintiff had communicated an invitation to the then-First
Family to adopt Katie’s daughter, Dana Blue-Eyes, as a White House pet as well
as the First Family’s personal radiation monitor.
18. Then-First Lady Michelle Obama responded to the invitation through her press
office as follows on March 9, 2012 at 1:31 PM: “Thank you for your interest in the
First Family. Your offer is extremely generous and seems like a fantastic
opportunity, it is truly appreciated. Unfortunately, we are unable to satisfy your
request. We apologize that we could not be more helpful. Again thank you so
much for such a kind gesture. We wish you well in the future.”
19. Katie died in 2012, but plaintiff continues to test the milk produced by her
progeny residing at her Redding address; some samples have tested positively
for strontium-90 and strontium-89.
20.In September 2017, the Redding Zoning Commission issued a cease and desist
order directing plaintiff to reduce the number of goats on her property to no more
than nine within ten days of said order; there was no manner nor method
available within which plaintiff could so reduce the herd other than by subjecting
them to the brutality and cruelty of slaughter.
21. Plaintiff is opposed to the slaughter of innocent animals on grounds of her moral
and religious convictions.
22. Since before and after issuance of said order, plaintiff has endeavored
conscientiously and in good faith to reduce the goat herd by locating individuals
and rescue sanctuaries interested in adopting such goats and providing them
with good care, nutrition and shelter for the duration of their natural lives.
23.In addition, as is expressly allowed by law, plaintiff filed a land management plan
by which she proposed to reduce the herd by relocating most of the goats to
good homes with the help of an animal rescue organization, Animal Nation, Inc.,
which agreed in a binding contract to find good homes for all of plaintiff's goats
except nine which she intended to keep without protest by the Zoning
Commission.
24. Animal Nation, Inc. breached the contract before fulfilling its obligations; the
plaintiff has brought suit to enforce compliance with the contract, which suit is
pending. Nancy Burton v. Animal Nation, Inc., DBD-CV-19-5015207-S.
25.Responding to an anonymous complaint, the Connecticut Department of
Agriculture (“DOAG) assigned one of its animal control officers to investigate
plaintiffs goats and their care in 2017.
26.At the conclusion of the investigation, which included two visits personally
supervised by Mary Lis, DVM, then-state veterinarian, said DOAG animal control
officers concluded in a written report dated June 15, 2018: “At the end of this
investigation, all goats on the property appear to be in good condition with food
and water available.”
27.1In the meantime, Animal Nation, Inc. and its staff and volunteers were successful
in relocating between 30 and 40 goats to what it represented were “good
homes.”
28. However, in March 2018, Animal Nation, Inc. breached the contract with plaintiff
and refused to complete the performance of activities it committed itself to
completing in the contract, including locating and moving more goats to good
homes, assisting in securing fencing, repairing and upgrading shelters and
providing veterinarian care as appropriate and it remains obligated to do so.
29.Further, since on and before September 2017, plaintiff has by other means
endeavored conscientiously to reduce the goat herd.
30. Defendant David Philip Mason (“Mason”) resides and owns property at 146
Cross Highway, Redding, Connecticut, across the street from the plaintiff. Once
a practicing attorney in New York City, he was ordered suspended from the
practice of law by order of the Appellate Division of the State of New York,
November 20, 2013; upon information and belief, said order remains in effect.
31. Defendant Elinore Carmody (“Carmody”), formerly publisher of a failed
magazine, and her husband, Dennis Gibbons (‘Gibbons’), a retired nurse, reside
at 135 Cross Highway adjacent to plaintiff.
32. Prior to issuance of the cease and desist order, said Mason, Carmody, Gibbons
and others took to harassing plaintiff and interfering with her ability to carry out
her objective to rehome most of her goats in the following ways, among others:
a Screaming at plaintiff's visitors as they stood on her property to
discourage them from carrying out conversations regarding potential goat
adoptions;
Kicking small goats that wandered beyond the fence to a stone wall where
they fed on leaves and poison ivy;
Directing hired laborers to dump paint debris onto the shared stone wall
separating their properties;
Enlisting neighbors and others in the Town of Redding to participate in a
malicious hate campaign using social media to spread false and malicious
information about plaintiff and the goats;
Instigating publication of defamatory falsehoods about plaintiff and the
goats as published on online social media channels operated by
defendant Susan Winters to incite negativity, malice and discourage
adoptions.
Clamoring by Carmody to encourage others to gather information for “her
case” against plaintiff and the goats; encouraging others to file false police
complaints alleging one or more of the goats was in the road when they
were not “in the road” but rather were permissibly grazing on leaves and
poison ivy on the stone wall near the road.
On April 26, 2021, Gibbons and Carmody pursued several of plaintiffs
goats grazing along the stone wall separating their property from plaintiff's
property by blowing an air-horn loudly in their direction, causing the goats
to panic and flee from the stone wall. Thereupon, Carmody and Gibbon
extended the middle fingers of their hands upright at plaintiff who was
standing nearby with a camera and screamed repeatedly at her: “Fuck
you!”
On September 30, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint with the defendant
Redding Police Chief Mark O’Donnell requesting the arrest and
prosecution of Carmody and Gibbon for wilful harassment and disorderly
conduct.
The Redding Police Department, per Chief Mark O’Donnell, subsequently
informed plaintiff that, per order of Chief O’Donnell, the Redding Police
Department would “take no action” on the complaint.
On August 19, 2020, Carmody anonymously texted the following message
to plaintiff at 8:13 PM: “Are you actually aware of how much you are
abusing these goats? They are screaming and desperate. You should be
ashamed. But you will pay. With their lives. You are a fucking nightmare.”
On August 26, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint with the Redding Police
Department, requesting that it conduct an investigation to determine the
source of the text and to arrest such person for harassment. The Redding
Police Department, per Defendant Chief O’Donnell, contacted plaintiff to
inform her that (a) It had been determined that Carmody was the source of
the harassing text; and (b) The Redding Police Department would “take no
action” on the complaint.
Perhaps inadvertently, Carmody revealed in her said text her (a) Complete
ignorance as to normal and natural goat behavior; (b) Her complete
ignorance that plaintiffs goats were behaving normally as goats do in their
natural state; and (c) Her propensity to lie and prevaricate with reckless
disregard for the consequences of her chronic lying; (d) Her reckless
disregard for the goats’ welfare; (e ) Her reckless disregard for plaintiff's
rights; (f) Her intention to cause plaintiff to suffer extreme distress; (g) Her
complete ignorance of Connecticut law by which an individual's “right to
farm’ is legally protected; (h) Her confidence that the Redding Police
Department per Chief O’Donnell would enable her to break the law
repeatedly and cause plaintiff and her goats to suffer serious injury
because of her illegal actions and (i) nevertheless enjoy immunity from
prosecution
33.On or about April 2020, the State of Connecticut, per Gov. Ned Lamont, declared
a state of emergency in Connecticut due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which
declaration remains in effect; in consequence, public activities in the Town of
Redding came to a virtual pause; traffic diminished significantly, and individuals
were directed to wear masks and avoid social contact with others within a range
of less than six feet; these directives hindered plaintiff's ability to interact with
potential goat adopters.
34.On April 30, 2020, some of plaintiff's goats crossed the road onto the Mason
property. In coordination with Carmody, Gibbons and the Redding Police
Department, Mason utilized an air-horn to create a loud and annoying noise by
which means he deliberately panicked the goats who began an uncontrolled
stampede as he chased them in a wild frenzy galloping onto and across the road
and back onto plaintiff's property.
35.Mason’s intent - and the intent of Carmody, Gibbon and the Redding Police
Department and Chief O’Donnell - was to cause the goats to be killed or injured
in a collision with oncoming vehicles; it was understood by Mason, Carmody,
Gibbons, the Redding Police Department and Chief O’Donnell that should the
scheme go as planned and goats be killed or injured as a consequence of being
chased by Mason in a stampede across the road, plaintiff would be wrongfully
charged with animal cruelty, a misdemeanor, and Mason, Carmody, Gibbon and
the Redding Police Department would be held blameless.
36. In fact, the Redding police did arrest plaintiff on a warrant signed by the Hon.
Robert A. D’Andrea, whose current assignments included Burton v. Animal
Ni lation, Inc.; days prior to the arrest, Redding Animal Control Officer Michael
DeLuca ordered plaintiff to not leave her residence until he returned at a date
and time he did not disclose; he later participated in the arrest of the plaintiff on a
bogus and false assertion that she impeded his search for a severely injured
goat when none of plaintiff's goats was injured during the incident, having based
the arrest on such charge entirely on false statements made by Carmody and/or
Gibbon and/or Mason.
37. The Redding Police Department, per Chief O'Donnell, made haste to issue a
press release announcing plaintiff's arrest and disperse it widely to the
Connecticut news media announcing plaintiff's arrest and accusing her of being
responsible for the “severe harm’ to a goat that assertedly collided with a vehicle
in the incident; such statement was false and recklessly asserted to defame
plaintiff and interfere with her tireless efforts to relocate her goats to other safe
and secure homes. The Redding Police Department never recovered or
identified a goat in plaintiffs herd injured in such incident.
38. By the conduct as described hereinabove, and acting with a reckless intent to
kill, injure and/or maim plaintiff's goats, said defendants engaged in deliberate,
impermissible and unlawful animal cruelty.
39.Responding to a Freedom of Information request submitted by plaintiff, DOAG
staff attorney Carole Briggs later acknowledged that DOAG has no records of
any prior prosecution of an individual who witnessed a person causing goats to
stampede in a frenzy onto a public road by panicking them by blowing repeatedly
on an air horn, nor in which the air-horn blower was not prosecuted.
40.On November 30, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint with Redding Police Chief
O'Donnell requesting the arrest and prosecution of defendants Carmody,
Gibbons and Mason with regard to the April 30, 2021 incident, as set forth
hereinabove, for wanton animal cruelty, harassment and related offenses;
plaintiff offered to provide photographs and other materials which document the
allegations and which were never requested; to date, upon information and
belief, no action has been taken on such complaint other than a reported referral
to the state’s attorney’s office for unknown disposition.
41.On December 2, 2020, plaintiff delivered an identical complaint to defendant
Bryan Hurlburt, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, in which she
demanded an investigation of the alleged acts of deliberate and wanton animal
cruelty as set forth in the complaint identified hereinabove at paragraph 40 and
offered to provide photographs and other documents material to the complaint,
which were never requested.
42.Later on December 2, 2020, DOAG staff attorney Carole Briggs emailed plaintiff
as follows: “Dear Ms. Burton: this will confirm receipt of your communication. The
department takes seriously all allegations of animal cruelty.”
43. DOAG assigned investigation of the complaint to Charles DellaRocco, a DOAG
animal control officer.
44. Defendant DellaRocco had been exposed by an article published in the Hartford
Courant and elsewhere as an individual who had been forced to resign as coach
of the Old Saybrook High School girls’ soccer team because of publicity
surrounding his practice of viewing depictions of child pornography on the
Internet during work hours; upon information and belief, in proceedings in the
Superior Court on March 30, 2021 in the case of State of Connecticut v. 65
Goats et al., HHD-CV-21-6139702-S, defendant DellaRocco lied under oath
about the incident.
45. Plaintiff related the facts of the April 30, 2020 incident to defendant DellaRocco
when he later made an unannounced visit to her property.
46. DellaRocco responded by stating that if plaintiff's recital of the facts was true and
accurate — as it was - the Redding Police Department lacked probable cause to
arrest plaintiff.
47. Appearing in the Superior Court as a DOAG witness in a recent proceeding,
DellaRocco testified falsely under oath that the plaintiffs November 30, 2020
complaint was “unfounded.”
48.On or about February 3, 2021, defendant DellaRocco secreted himself on the
Carmody-Gibbons property to conduct a surveillance of plaintiff and her property.
49. There had recently been a major blizzard and successive heavy winter
snowstorms and the ground was covered in deep snow, impeding visibility from
DellaRocco’s secretive vantage point.
50. Based on a single observation that day of plaintiff sitting down on a lawn chair
in the midst of engaging in goat chores, DellaRocco allegedly ordered a four-day
continuous surveillance of plaintiff and her property in collaboration with the
defendant Redding Police Department to occur on early in March.
51.On March 9, 2021, defendant DellaRocco presented an affidavit to Judge
D’Andrea in which he sought an order to search plaintiffs property and seize all
her goats.
52. Such affidavit was replete with knowingly false statements, expressions of
malice, misogyny, reliance on statements of others known to be habitual
prevaricators and dishonest by nature and other shortcomings and deliberate
departures from legal standards evidencing ignorance of plaintiff, the goats and
pertinent facts such as to render the affidavit an abuse of the police power and
defective, failing to set forth legally sufficient and accurate facts to satisfy due é
process requirements for issuance of a search and seizure warrant of private
property in the State of Connecticut.
53. The search and seizure affidavit presents NO CAUSE FOR THE REQUESTED
INVASION OF PLAINTIFF’S PRIVATE PROPERTY AND SEIZURE OF
PLAINTIFF’S ENTIRE HERD OF GOATS.
54. Nevertheless, Judge D’Andrea issued the requested warrant on March 9, 2021,
purporting to authorize the immediate seizure of 65 goats from plaintiff's property
and other acts.
55. The affidavit sets forth no cause whatsoever for a search of plaintiffs home; yet
the warrant issued by Judge D’Andrea purports to authorize a search of plaintiff's
home, an unprecedented prospective invasion at the heart of Fourth Amendment
privacy protection from invasion by the state.
56.On March 10, 2021, Defendant DellaRocco commenced an unannounced
operation on plaintiffs property by breaking apart her security gate in her
absence in the company of many DOAG agents and members of the Redding
Police Department and defendant Redding First Selectman Julia Pemberton
during which plaintiff was ordered by him shortly after her appearance on the
property not to communicate with anyone involved in the search-and-seizure
operation.
57.At the time of the March 10, 2021 operation, defendants DOAG and the Town of
Redding and defendant Pemberton were all well aware of the following:
A. That plaintiff had made arrangements to transfer 10 female goats and two
bucklings on the previous two weekends to SBF Animal Rescue, Inc., (an
appointment which had to be postponed because of adverse winter weather
conditions — heavy accumulations of snow and ice) to Stoney Brook Farm
Animal Rescue, Inc. (“SBF Animal Rescue, Inc.”), an animal rescue sanctuary
of good repute which is a registered 501(c)(3) charity under the operation and
direction of its president, Rosa Buonomo, and is located at 96 Swimming Hole
Road in Harwinton, Connecticut and that the twelve goats’ transfer to SBF
Animal Rescue, Inc. was imminent; and
That SBF Animal Rescue, Inc. had agreed to take in for adoption all of
plaintiff's remaining goats shortly thereafter; and
That Goats of Anarchy, Inc., which operates a respected goat rescue
sanctuary in New Jersey and which is part of a large and reputable goat-
adoption network, had also committed to adopting as many of plaintiff's goats
as plaintiff had available for adoption; and
That others in the Redding community had made bona fide requests to adopt
plaintiff's goats; and
That the Town of Redding, per its town counsel, Steven Stafstrom, Esq., had
proposed to plaintiff on March 9, 2021 — the very day defendant DellaRocco
applied to Judge D’Andrea for a warrant to seize plaintiffs goats and thereby
subject the State of Connecticut and the Town of Redding to significant costs
and commitment of significant resources of time - that the Town of Redding
would assist financially to transfer plaintiff's goats to SBF Animal Rescue, Inc.
on condition that plaintiff drop two lawsuits pending against the Town of
Redding concerning the goats, a step plaintiff was fully prepared to take, and
which proposal Mr. Stafstrom assured he would pursue forthwith with the
Board of Selectmen of the Town of Redding with his strong recommendation
that the Board enter into such a commitment; and
That plaintiff was subject to an order issued by Hon. Barbara Bellis, assigned
to the Complex Litigation Docket, to appear for a remote hearing on March
10, 2021 at 9 AM in the two cases she had brought involving her goats; and
That plaintiff's goats, with very limited exceptions, were in good health, were
well-nourished, had access to plentiful clean water, were appropriately
sheltered, had access to spacious exercise and grazing areas, received
veterinary care when and where appropriate and were loved and well cared
for by plaintiff, their devoted caretaker; and
That plaintiff's goats are entitled to special protection as participants in and
contributors to the Mothers Milk Project, a pro bono public-interest charity
devoted to public health and education; and
I That DOAG lacked probable or any other proper or sufficient cause to search
plaintiff's property and seize all her goats.
58. Beginning prior to 8 AM on March 10, 2021, defendant DellaRocco and other
defendant DOAG agents and members of the defendant Redding Police
Department converged unannounced on plaintiff's property and committed the
following acts of deliberate animal cruelty:
A They forcibly removed an estimated 65 goats belonging to plaintiff without
her knowledge or acquiescence and without proper legal cause based on
a search and.seizure warrant fraudulently secured by defendant
DellaRocco; and
The forcible removal subjected the goats, who were accustomed to a
loving home that provided security, peace, comfort and all their needs, to
a time of terror, high anxiety and stress, including two-hour high-speed
travel in crowded, unsafe conditions, all of which contribute to ill health;
In their ignorance and disinterest, defendant DellaRocco and his DOAC
accomplices wilfully separated kid goats from their lactating mothers,
thereby depriving them of all the benefits nature intended them to receive
as they had received under plaintiff's care for their entire lives and critical
nurturing to enhance their well-being and good health; and
In their ignorance and wilful disinterest, defendant DellaRocco and his
accomplices denied plaintiff's ability to communicate vital facts of each
goat’s medical and social history to them to enable them to provide
necessary medical and therapeutic care to them during their illegal seizure
from their home; and
In their ignorance and wilful disinterest, DellaRocco and his accomplices
repeatedly denied and ignored plaintiffs requests that she provide them
with medications prescribed by a licensed veterinarian as necessary and
critical to their treatments and good health and well-being, thereby
depriving the goats of the good and devoted care they had been receiving;
and
In their ignorance and wilful disinterest, DellaRocco and his accomplices
refused to communicate with plaintiff so as to discover the true facts as to
their medical and physical care, ongoing upgrades to the property and
shelters and the provisional, temporary nature of many of the feeding and
housing arrangements due to concessions to the weather, namely, the
delay in altering and/or upgrading some of these arrangements until the
heavy snow and ice cover receded and temperatures warmed to enable
such work to be carried out efficiently.
59. Upon information and belief, plaintiff's goats have been confined in over-
crowded conditions to small stalls at the Large Animal facility operated by DOAG
in Niantic, Connecticut, where they have been subject,to the following acts of
wilful and deliberate abuse and cruelty to animals: (
A. They have been held captive in small and overcrowded stalls apparently
lacking in water and hay supply; and
B Goat kids still in need of nursing for their good health and well-being and
in need of their mothers’ presence for nurturing have been wilfully
separated from their mothers and thereby deprived of these necessities’
which they enjoyed without interruption or interference at their Redding
home; and
The goats have been illegally photographed and offered for sale and/or
adoption in an apparent “goat black market” operated by DOAG in
knowing violation of law and which has been allowed to corrupt the “open
auction” procedure set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. §29-329a(i), thereby
subjecting plaintiff's goats to auction and/or sale and consequent acts of
uncontrolled barbarism, terror and deliberate animal abuse and cruelty.
Despite continuous pleas by plaintiff for the immediate release of her
goats to the safety, serenity and security of their Redding home, to the
Governor of the State, the Attorney General of the State, the
Commissioner of Agriculture of the State and other officials in position of
power and authority whose tenure requires good-faith actions upholding
the laws of the State of Connecticut, plaintiff's pleas have without
exception been ignored; and
On or about March 16, 2021, defendant DellaRocco telephoned said Rosa
Buonomo, president of SBF Animal Rescue, Inc., to inform her that the
Connecticut Department of Agriculture had decided to release all of
plaintiffs goats to the care and custody of SBF Animal Rescue, Inc., in
accordance with plaintiffs agreement; by his deceitful conduct and failure
to effectuate the release forthwith and without delay of plaintiff's goats to
the care and custody of SBF Animal Rescue, Inc., defendants DellaRocco,
Hurlburt and Connecticut Department of Agriculture have consigned
plaintiff's goats to unsafe, unsecured facilities with uncertain futures for no
good reason when superior care is available for free, courtesy SBF Animal
Rescue, Inc. and other reputable sanctuaries committed to animal rescue
and lifelong care; this misconduct squanders state resources and
constitutes wilful animal abuse and cruelty.
COUNT ONE: Cruelty to Animals
60. Paragraphs 1 — 59 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as
Paragraph 60 of the First Count.
61. Thereby, the defendants David Philip Mason, Elinore Carmody, Dennis Gibbon,
the Town of Redding, Connecticut, Mark O’Donnell, Chief, Police Department of
Redding, Connecticut Department of Agriculture , Bryan Hurlburt, Commissioner
of the Connecticut Department of Agriculture and Charles DellaRocco, Animal
Control Officer of the State of Connecticut, and Julia Pemberton, Redding First
Selectmansome or all of them, have acted, individually and in concert, in
coordination and cooperation with one another, committed and continue to
commit deliberate and wilful acts of prohibited animal cruelty upon plaintiff's
goats, causing them to suffer severe harm in violation of law.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests declaratory and injunctive relief in her favor terminating
the State of Connecticut v. 65 Goats et al. proceedings with prejudice against plaintiff
(State of Connecticut) in that suit and an award of compensatory and punitive damages
in the amount of $65 million.
COUNT TWO: DEFAMATION
62. Paragraphs 1 through 59 of the First Count are incorporated by reference herein
as though set forth herein.
63. Defendant Susan Winters (“Winters”) resides at 50 Seventy Acres Road in
Redding, Connecticut; she operates an online gossip sheet called
“hellonewsct.com.”
64.On or about July 22, 2020 Winters posted an article on the site titled “Goats: an
ongoing issue.”
65. The said article is replete with malicious and unfounded falsehoods targeting
plaintiff in a reckless character assassination and relying on false and malicious
statements provided by the co-defendant Elinore Carmody.
66. Although plaintiff issued a demand in writing pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat.§52-
237 for a retraction of the false and malicious statements and the entire article, to
date, Winters has failed to comply with said request.
67.Publication of said article has caused plaintiff to suffer significant damages.
68. Said conduct constitutes actionable libel.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of
$10 million.
THIRD COUNT: INVASION OF PRIVACY
69.Paragraphs 1 through 59 are incorporated by reference herein as Paragraph 69.
70. Thereby, the defendants, some or all of them, have wrongfully, illegally and
malicious invaded plaintiff's right of privacy.
71.Such invasion of privacy has caused plaintiff to suffer harm and financial loss.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of
$10 million and injunctive relief terminating defendants’ continuing invasions of plaintiff's
privacy.
FOURTH COUNT: HARASSMENT
72.Paragraphs 1 through 59 are incorporated by reference herein.
73. Thereby, the defendants, some or all of them, have engaged in a campaign of
harassment against plaintiff.
74. Such harassment has caused plaintiff to suffer severe harm and financial loss.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of
$10 million and injunctive relief against future acts of harassment.
FIFTH COUNT: ELDER ABUSE
75.Paragraphs 1-59 are incorporated by reference herein.
76. Plaintiff is above the age of 60 and thereby is among the class of persons
subject to and entitled to all the protections of Connecticut law prohibiting “elder
abuse”.
77.Defendants, some or all of them, have subjected plaintiff to “elder abuse” as that
term is defined in the Connecticut General Statutes.
78.Such elder abuse has caused plaintiff to suffer severe harm and financial loss.
79.WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the
amount of $10 million and injunctive relief prohibiting future elder abuse by the
defendants.
SIXTH COUNT: ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE
80. Paragraphs 1-59 are incorporated by reference herein.
81. Defendants Carmody, Mason, Gibbon, Connecticut Department of Agriculture,
Bryan Hurlburt, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Agriculture, Charles
DellaRocco, animal control officer, Connecticut Department of Agriculture,
Redding Police Department and Redding Police Chief Mark O’Donnell, acting in
concert and with others, deliberately and maliciously contributed to the
submission of a false and fraudulent application for a search and seizure
warrant, regarding plaintiff's property, to the Connecticut Superior Court, which
was granted.
82. Such warrant purported to authorize an otherwise legally impermissible
search of plaintiff's home, which is private property, in violation of the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, which led to actions and orders
issued to plaintiff by defendants Building Department, Town of Redding,
Connecticut, and Health Department, Town of Redding, Connecticut, all of which
are consequently unlawful and unenforceable and prohibited.
83. Furthermore, such warrant purported to authorize some or all of the
defendants to search the “grounds” of plaintiffs property; in purported execution
of such warrant, defendants, some or all of them, vandalized, despoiled,
desecrated and exposed to the elements graves where goats had been buried
on plaintiff's property in accordance with the law.
84. Given that such warrant was issued upon an application fraught with fraud,
malicious intent, wilful misinformation and intent to deceive and is otherwise
illegal, all acts done pursuant to such warrant were done illegally and outside the
protection of the law in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
85. Such illegal search and seizure has caused plaintiff to suffer harm and financial
loss.
86.WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the
amount of $10 million and injunctive relief vacating said orders of the defendant
Building Department and Health Department and ordering immediate release of
plaintiff's goats to the care and custody of SBF Animal Rescue, Inc., as above-
identified.
SEVENTH COUNT: 42 U.S. CODE §1983
87. Paragraphs 1-59 of the First Count are incorporated herein as Paragraph 87 of
the Seventh Count.
88. The defendants, some or all of them, have acted under color of state law to
deprive plaintiff of her rights and protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,
including her rights to due process, First Amendment guarantees and the Fourth
Amendment protection against illegal searches and seizures.
89. Such deprivations have caused plaintiff to suffer severe harm and financial loss.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of
$65 million and injunctive relief against future violations of plaintiff's civil rights as
protected by the United States and Connecticut Constitutions.
EIGHTH COUNT: FALSE ARREST
90. Paragraphs 1-59 of the First Count are incorporated herein as Paragraph 90 of
the Eighth Count.
91.The defendants Police Department of the Town of Redding and Redding Police
Chief Mark O’Donnell-knowingly and maliciously brought about the false arrest of
the plaintiff in the complete absence of probable cause.
92. Such action has caused plaintiff to suffer severe harm and financial loss.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of
$20 million and withdrawal/dismissal of the defendants’ arrest warrant with prejudice
forthwith.
NINTH COUNT: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
93. Paragraphs 59 of the First Count are incorporated herein as Paragraph 93 of the
Ninth Count.
94. By such conduct as is alleged hereinabove, defendants intended to and did inflict
emotional distress on plaintiff.
95. Such emotional distress is severe and is continuing.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of
$20 million and declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting future infliction of emotional
distress upon plaintiff.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF:
Wherefore, plaintiff sets forth her claims for relief as $210 million in compensatory
and punitive damages and injunctive and declaratory relief as set forth hereinabove.
THE PLAINTIFF
154 Highland Ave.
Rowayton CT 06853
Tel. 203-313-1510
NancyBurtonCT@aol.com
Preview
RETURN DATE: MAY 11, 2021 NANCY BURTON SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT V. OF STAMFORD-NORWALK AT STAMFORD DAVID PHILIP MASON ELINORE CARMODY DENNIS GIBBON SUSAN WINTERS JULIA PEMBERTON, FIRST SELECTMAN TOWN OF REDDING, CONNECTICUT TOWN OF REDDING, REDDING CT MARK O’DONNELL, CHIEF, POLICE DEPARTMENT OF REDDING, CONNECTICUT (Individually and in His Official Capacity) CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BRYAN HURLBURT, COMMISSIONER, CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (Individually and in His Official Capacity) CHARLES DELLAROCCO, (Individually And in His Official Capacity as Animal Control Officer of the Connecticut Department of Agriculture) BUILDING DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF REDDING, CONNECTICUT HEALTH DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF REDDING, CONNECTICUT POLICE DEPT., TOWN OF REDDING CT APRIL 5, 2021 COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Nancy Burton has resided for 35 years at 147 Cross Highway in Redding, Connecticut. 2 Plaintiff is a former reporter for The Associated Press, an author and a book editor; and for some 20 years, she maintained a successful practice of primarily pro bono public-interest law in Connecticut in the area of environmental law. Beginning on or about 2008, plaintiff with others initiated the Mothers Milk Project to collect samples of goat and human milk for independent laboratory analysis for the presence of radioisotopes routinely released into the environment by the Millstone and Indian Point nuclear power plants; the project was initiated after plaintiff became of aware of state government records that revealed that Katie the Goat, who resided five miles downwind of Millstone in Waterford, Connecticut, produced milk with excessively high levels of inter alia strontium-90 and strontium-89, both deadly carcinogens particularly harmful to women, children and human embryos and fetuses. Plaintiff adopted Katie the Goat and brought her to live at her Redding home, where plaintiff continued the Mothers Milk Project to test Katie’s milk, and that of her progeny, for the presence of radioisotopes; various samples revealed the presence of strontium-90 and strontium-89 in the milk produced by Katie the Goat while she grazed in Redding, as reported in detail in an article titled “The nuclear safety debate hits home” published in the Connecticut Post, Stamford Advocate and Danbury News-Times newspapers on July 19, 2011, including concentrations of deadly carcinogen strontium-89 of 2.1 picocuries per liter and .4 picocuries per liter. Other sampling by the Mothers Milk Project revealed a concentration of 3.3 picocuries per liter of strontium-89 in human breast milk collected in 2009 in Orange County, New York in the Hudson River Valley downwind of Indian Point and 5 picocuries per liter of strontium-89 in milk collected from a goat grazing in Dutchess County, New York downwind of Indian Point. Plaintiff reported this information to health and environmental authorities in Connecticut, who took no action although required to undertake such environmental sampling of goat milk for the presence of radioisotopes dispersed by nuclear power plants pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §22a-135(a)(4). The State of Connecticut per its Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (“DEEP”) and Department of Agriculture (“DOAG”) has continuously and repeatedly refused to do so in violation of the law. The failure of the State of Connecticut to monitor milk taken from goats grazing downwind of Millstone and Indian Point robs the public - particularly mothers and their embryos, fetuses and young children — of governmental protection from a known health hazard of consequence and shields the nuclear industry from government surveillance of the true public health dangers and consequences of routine, let alone emergency, operations of Millstone and Indian Point. Earlier sampling of milk collected by DEEP from goats grazing within two miles of Millstone have revealed dangerous concentrations of radioisotopes, including strontium-90 and strontium-89. 10. Strontium-90 has a half-life of about 30 years, meaning that it takes a period of 30 years before half the radioactivity in the sample has decayed. 11, Strontium-89, in contrast, is a reliable indicator of the presence of nuclear power plant releases of radioactivity into the environment during routine operations; it has a half-life of approximately 50 days, meaning that if strontium-89 is detected in a goat milk sample, the strontium-89 was released from a nuclear fission event recently and not far away because otherwise it would evade detection and measurement. 12. The Mothers Milk Project is dedicated to inter alia development of a scientific database to monitor and track dispersal of radioactivity routinely released by Millstone and Indian Point and to correlate such information with a database of incidences of cancer, diseases of the immune system, premature deaths, birth defects, genetic mutations, miscarriages and other serious and often fatal outcomes of human and animal exposure to radioactivity routinely released by Millstone and Indian Point in order to motivate the government of the State of Connecticut to take appropriate action to eliminate such routine radioactivity releases to the air. 13.At the same time, Millstone routinely releases radioactive waste materials into the Long Island Sound and the public beach zones surrounding Millstone in East Lyme (including Niantic) and Waterford, including Hole-in-the-Wall Beach and Pleasure Beach; it is well known in such communities that clusters of brain cancer incidences, birth defects, breast cancer, lung cancer, miscarriages and many other fatal diseases occur in populations residing in the vicinity of Millstone and such popular public recreation areas. 14. The State of Connecticut actively impedes and frustrates public awareness of Millstone’s routine releases of radioactive and toxic chemical materials into the Long Island Sound at such location. 15. Indeed, in a recent decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court, officially released on January 21, 2021, the state’s highest court misled the public about such radioactive releases by characterizing them as “alleged” releases when, e.g., the record in the case is replete with data of Millstone’s actual and admitted releases of radioactive materials to the Long Island Sound via its “quarry cut,” including a report in evidence submitted to the federal government by Millstone’s owners and operators that during a recent five-year period Millstone released 1.74 million gallons (145 millicuries) of fission and activation products (“radwaste”) to the Long Island Sound, a figure shortly to be increased by 9.1%. Other reports submitted by Millstone’s owners and operators admitted catching a fish in Niantic Bay (an estuary of the Long Island Sound) contaminated with cesium-137, a carcinogen the Millstone personnel admitted was released during routine Millstone operations. Medical experts have linked the radioactive contamination of Niantic Bay by Millstone routine operations to the near-fatal medical condition of a boy born to a mother who routinely swam in Niantic Bay during her pregnancy, unaware of its radioactive contamination. See plaintiffs “Motion for Reconsideration En Banc” dated February 8, 2021, as filed in Nancy Burton v. Regina McCarthy, SC 20466, pages 6-7. 16. Katie the Goat was diagnosed with terminal thoracic cancer in 2012; plaintiff took Katie, who had become a goat celebrity championing an anti-nuclear platform at rallies across the state, on a farewell tour to the White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC, on March 11, 2012, the one-year anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe. 17.Prior to such tour, plaintiff had communicated an invitation to the then-First Family to adopt Katie’s daughter, Dana Blue-Eyes, as a White House pet as well as the First Family’s personal radiation monitor. 18. Then-First Lady Michelle Obama responded to the invitation through her press office as follows on March 9, 2012 at 1:31 PM: “Thank you for your interest in the First Family. Your offer is extremely generous and seems like a fantastic opportunity, it is truly appreciated. Unfortunately, we are unable to satisfy your request. We apologize that we could not be more helpful. Again thank you so much for such a kind gesture. We wish you well in the future.” 19. Katie died in 2012, but plaintiff continues to test the milk produced by her progeny residing at her Redding address; some samples have tested positively for strontium-90 and strontium-89. 20.In September 2017, the Redding Zoning Commission issued a cease and desist order directing plaintiff to reduce the number of goats on her property to no more than nine within ten days of said order; there was no manner nor method available within which plaintiff could so reduce the herd other than by subjecting them to the brutality and cruelty of slaughter. 21. Plaintiff is opposed to the slaughter of innocent animals on grounds of her moral and religious convictions. 22. Since before and after issuance of said order, plaintiff has endeavored conscientiously and in good faith to reduce the goat herd by locating individuals and rescue sanctuaries interested in adopting such goats and providing them with good care, nutrition and shelter for the duration of their natural lives. 23.In addition, as is expressly allowed by law, plaintiff filed a land management plan by which she proposed to reduce the herd by relocating most of the goats to good homes with the help of an animal rescue organization, Animal Nation, Inc., which agreed in a binding contract to find good homes for all of plaintiff's goats except nine which she intended to keep without protest by the Zoning Commission. 24. Animal Nation, Inc. breached the contract before fulfilling its obligations; the plaintiff has brought suit to enforce compliance with the contract, which suit is pending. Nancy Burton v. Animal Nation, Inc., DBD-CV-19-5015207-S. 25.Responding to an anonymous complaint, the Connecticut Department of Agriculture (“DOAG) assigned one of its animal control officers to investigate plaintiffs goats and their care in 2017. 26.At the conclusion of the investigation, which included two visits personally supervised by Mary Lis, DVM, then-state veterinarian, said DOAG animal control officers concluded in a written report dated June 15, 2018: “At the end of this investigation, all goats on the property appear to be in good condition with food and water available.” 27.1In the meantime, Animal Nation, Inc. and its staff and volunteers were successful in relocating between 30 and 40 goats to what it represented were “good homes.” 28. However, in March 2018, Animal Nation, Inc. breached the contract with plaintiff and refused to complete the performance of activities it committed itself to completing in the contract, including locating and moving more goats to good homes, assisting in securing fencing, repairing and upgrading shelters and providing veterinarian care as appropriate and it remains obligated to do so. 29.Further, since on and before September 2017, plaintiff has by other means endeavored conscientiously to reduce the goat herd. 30. Defendant David Philip Mason (“Mason”) resides and owns property at 146 Cross Highway, Redding, Connecticut, across the street from the plaintiff. Once a practicing attorney in New York City, he was ordered suspended from the practice of law by order of the Appellate Division of the State of New York, November 20, 2013; upon information and belief, said order remains in effect. 31. Defendant Elinore Carmody (“Carmody”), formerly publisher of a failed magazine, and her husband, Dennis Gibbons (‘Gibbons’), a retired nurse, reside at 135 Cross Highway adjacent to plaintiff. 32. Prior to issuance of the cease and desist order, said Mason, Carmody, Gibbons and others took to harassing plaintiff and interfering with her ability to carry out her objective to rehome most of her goats in the following ways, among others: a Screaming at plaintiff's visitors as they stood on her property to discourage them from carrying out conversations regarding potential goat adoptions; Kicking small goats that wandered beyond the fence to a stone wall where they fed on leaves and poison ivy; Directing hired laborers to dump paint debris onto the shared stone wall separating their properties; Enlisting neighbors and others in the Town of Redding to participate in a malicious hate campaign using social media to spread false and malicious information about plaintiff and the goats; Instigating publication of defamatory falsehoods about plaintiff and the goats as published on online social media channels operated by defendant Susan Winters to incite negativity, malice and discourage adoptions. Clamoring by Carmody to encourage others to gather information for “her case” against plaintiff and the goats; encouraging others to file false police complaints alleging one or more of the goats was in the road when they were not “in the road” but rather were permissibly grazing on leaves and poison ivy on the stone wall near the road. On April 26, 2021, Gibbons and Carmody pursued several of plaintiffs goats grazing along the stone wall separating their property from plaintiff's property by blowing an air-horn loudly in their direction, causing the goats to panic and flee from the stone wall. Thereupon, Carmody and Gibbon extended the middle fingers of their hands upright at plaintiff who was standing nearby with a camera and screamed repeatedly at her: “Fuck you!” On September 30, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint with the defendant Redding Police Chief Mark O’Donnell requesting the arrest and prosecution of Carmody and Gibbon for wilful harassment and disorderly conduct. The Redding Police Department, per Chief Mark O’Donnell, subsequently informed plaintiff that, per order of Chief O’Donnell, the Redding Police Department would “take no action” on the complaint. On August 19, 2020, Carmody anonymously texted the following message to plaintiff at 8:13 PM: “Are you actually aware of how much you are abusing these goats? They are screaming and desperate. You should be ashamed. But you will pay. With their lives. You are a fucking nightmare.” On August 26, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint with the Redding Police Department, requesting that it conduct an investigation to determine the source of the text and to arrest such person for harassment. The Redding Police Department, per Defendant Chief O’Donnell, contacted plaintiff to inform her that (a) It had been determined that Carmody was the source of the harassing text; and (b) The Redding Police Department would “take no action” on the complaint. Perhaps inadvertently, Carmody revealed in her said text her (a) Complete ignorance as to normal and natural goat behavior; (b) Her complete ignorance that plaintiffs goats were behaving normally as goats do in their natural state; and (c) Her propensity to lie and prevaricate with reckless disregard for the consequences of her chronic lying; (d) Her reckless disregard for the goats’ welfare; (e ) Her reckless disregard for plaintiff's rights; (f) Her intention to cause plaintiff to suffer extreme distress; (g) Her complete ignorance of Connecticut law by which an individual's “right to farm’ is legally protected; (h) Her confidence that the Redding Police Department per Chief O’Donnell would enable her to break the law repeatedly and cause plaintiff and her goats to suffer serious injury because of her illegal actions and (i) nevertheless enjoy immunity from prosecution 33.On or about April 2020, the State of Connecticut, per Gov. Ned Lamont, declared a state of emergency in Connecticut due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which declaration remains in effect; in consequence, public activities in the Town of Redding came to a virtual pause; traffic diminished significantly, and individuals were directed to wear masks and avoid social contact with others within a range of less than six feet; these directives hindered plaintiff's ability to interact with potential goat adopters. 34.On April 30, 2020, some of plaintiff's goats crossed the road onto the Mason property. In coordination with Carmody, Gibbons and the Redding Police Department, Mason utilized an air-horn to create a loud and annoying noise by which means he deliberately panicked the goats who began an uncontrolled stampede as he chased them in a wild frenzy galloping onto and across the road and back onto plaintiff's property. 35.Mason’s intent - and the intent of Carmody, Gibbon and the Redding Police Department and Chief O’Donnell - was to cause the goats to be killed or injured in a collision with oncoming vehicles; it was understood by Mason, Carmody, Gibbons, the Redding Police Department and Chief O’Donnell that should the scheme go as planned and goats be killed or injured as a consequence of being chased by Mason in a stampede across the road, plaintiff would be wrongfully charged with animal cruelty, a misdemeanor, and Mason, Carmody, Gibbon and the Redding Police Department would be held blameless. 36. In fact, the Redding police did arrest plaintiff on a warrant signed by the Hon. Robert A. D’Andrea, whose current assignments included Burton v. Animal Ni lation, Inc.; days prior to the arrest, Redding Animal Control Officer Michael DeLuca ordered plaintiff to not leave her residence until he returned at a date and time he did not disclose; he later participated in the arrest of the plaintiff on a bogus and false assertion that she impeded his search for a severely injured goat when none of plaintiff's goats was injured during the incident, having based the arrest on such charge entirely on false statements made by Carmody and/or Gibbon and/or Mason. 37. The Redding Police Department, per Chief O'Donnell, made haste to issue a press release announcing plaintiff's arrest and disperse it widely to the Connecticut news media announcing plaintiff's arrest and accusing her of being responsible for the “severe harm’ to a goat that assertedly collided with a vehicle in the incident; such statement was false and recklessly asserted to defame plaintiff and interfere with her tireless efforts to relocate her goats to other safe and secure homes. The Redding Police Department never recovered or identified a goat in plaintiffs herd injured in such incident. 38. By the conduct as described hereinabove, and acting with a reckless intent to kill, injure and/or maim plaintiff's goats, said defendants engaged in deliberate, impermissible and unlawful animal cruelty. 39.Responding to a Freedom of Information request submitted by plaintiff, DOAG staff attorney Carole Briggs later acknowledged that DOAG has no records of any prior prosecution of an individual who witnessed a person causing goats to stampede in a frenzy onto a public road by panicking them by blowing repeatedly on an air horn, nor in which the air-horn blower was not prosecuted. 40.On November 30, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint with Redding Police Chief O'Donnell requesting the arrest and prosecution of defendants Carmody, Gibbons and Mason with regard to the April 30, 2021 incident, as set forth hereinabove, for wanton animal cruelty, harassment and related offenses; plaintiff offered to provide photographs and other materials which document the allegations and which were never requested; to date, upon information and belief, no action has been taken on such complaint other than a reported referral to the state’s attorney’s office for unknown disposition. 41.On December 2, 2020, plaintiff delivered an identical complaint to defendant Bryan Hurlburt, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, in which she demanded an investigation of the alleged acts of deliberate and wanton animal cruelty as set forth in the complaint identified hereinabove at paragraph 40 and offered to provide photographs and other documents material to the complaint, which were never requested. 42.Later on December 2, 2020, DOAG staff attorney Carole Briggs emailed plaintiff as follows: “Dear Ms. Burton: this will confirm receipt of your communication. The department takes seriously all allegations of animal cruelty.” 43. DOAG assigned investigation of the complaint to Charles DellaRocco, a DOAG animal control officer. 44. Defendant DellaRocco had been exposed by an article published in the Hartford Courant and elsewhere as an individual who had been forced to resign as coach of the Old Saybrook High School girls’ soccer team because of publicity surrounding his practice of viewing depictions of child pornography on the Internet during work hours; upon information and belief, in proceedings in the Superior Court on March 30, 2021 in the case of State of Connecticut v. 65 Goats et al., HHD-CV-21-6139702-S, defendant DellaRocco lied under oath about the incident. 45. Plaintiff related the facts of the April 30, 2020 incident to defendant DellaRocco when he later made an unannounced visit to her property. 46. DellaRocco responded by stating that if plaintiff's recital of the facts was true and accurate — as it was - the Redding Police Department lacked probable cause to arrest plaintiff. 47. Appearing in the Superior Court as a DOAG witness in a recent proceeding, DellaRocco testified falsely under oath that the plaintiffs November 30, 2020 complaint was “unfounded.” 48.On or about February 3, 2021, defendant DellaRocco secreted himself on the Carmody-Gibbons property to conduct a surveillance of plaintiff and her property. 49. There had recently been a major blizzard and successive heavy winter snowstorms and the ground was covered in deep snow, impeding visibility from DellaRocco’s secretive vantage point. 50. Based on a single observation that day of plaintiff sitting down on a lawn chair in the midst of engaging in goat chores, DellaRocco allegedly ordered a four-day continuous surveillance of plaintiff and her property in collaboration with the defendant Redding Police Department to occur on early in March. 51.On March 9, 2021, defendant DellaRocco presented an affidavit to Judge D’Andrea in which he sought an order to search plaintiffs property and seize all her goats. 52. Such affidavit was replete with knowingly false statements, expressions of malice, misogyny, reliance on statements of others known to be habitual prevaricators and dishonest by nature and other shortcomings and deliberate departures from legal standards evidencing ignorance of plaintiff, the goats and pertinent facts such as to render the affidavit an abuse of the police power and defective, failing to set forth legally sufficient and accurate facts to satisfy due é process requirements for issuance of a search and seizure warrant of private property in the State of Connecticut. 53. The search and seizure affidavit presents NO CAUSE FOR THE REQUESTED INVASION OF PLAINTIFF’S PRIVATE PROPERTY AND SEIZURE OF PLAINTIFF’S ENTIRE HERD OF GOATS. 54. Nevertheless, Judge D’Andrea issued the requested warrant on March 9, 2021, purporting to authorize the immediate seizure of 65 goats from plaintiff's property and other acts. 55. The affidavit sets forth no cause whatsoever for a search of plaintiffs home; yet the warrant issued by Judge D’Andrea purports to authorize a search of plaintiff's home, an unprecedented prospective invasion at the heart of Fourth Amendment privacy protection from invasion by the state. 56.On March 10, 2021, Defendant DellaRocco commenced an unannounced operation on plaintiffs property by breaking apart her security gate in her absence in the company of many DOAG agents and members of the Redding Police Department and defendant Redding First Selectman Julia Pemberton during which plaintiff was ordered by him shortly after her appearance on the property not to communicate with anyone involved in the search-and-seizure operation. 57.At the time of the March 10, 2021 operation, defendants DOAG and the Town of Redding and defendant Pemberton were all well aware of the following: A. That plaintiff had made arrangements to transfer 10 female goats and two bucklings on the previous two weekends to SBF Animal Rescue, Inc., (an appointment which had to be postponed because of adverse winter weather conditions — heavy accumulations of snow and ice) to Stoney Brook Farm Animal Rescue, Inc. (“SBF Animal Rescue, Inc.”), an animal rescue sanctuary of good repute which is a registered 501(c)(3) charity under the operation and direction of its president, Rosa Buonomo, and is located at 96 Swimming Hole Road in Harwinton, Connecticut and that the twelve goats’ transfer to SBF Animal Rescue, Inc. was imminent; and That SBF Animal Rescue, Inc. had agreed to take in for adoption all of plaintiff's remaining goats shortly thereafter; and That Goats of Anarchy, Inc., which operates a respected goat rescue sanctuary in New Jersey and which is part of a large and reputable goat- adoption network, had also committed to adopting as many of plaintiff's goats as plaintiff had available for adoption; and That others in the Redding community had made bona fide requests to adopt plaintiff's goats; and That the Town of Redding, per its town counsel, Steven Stafstrom, Esq., had proposed to plaintiff on March 9, 2021 — the very day defendant DellaRocco applied to Judge D’Andrea for a warrant to seize plaintiffs goats and thereby subject the State of Connecticut and the Town of Redding to significant costs and commitment of significant resources of time - that the Town of Redding would assist financially to transfer plaintiff's goats to SBF Animal Rescue, Inc. on condition that plaintiff drop two lawsuits pending against the Town of Redding concerning the goats, a step plaintiff was fully prepared to take, and which proposal Mr. Stafstrom assured he would pursue forthwith with the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Redding with his strong recommendation that the Board enter into such a commitment; and That plaintiff was subject to an order issued by Hon. Barbara Bellis, assigned to the Complex Litigation Docket, to appear for a remote hearing on March 10, 2021 at 9 AM in the two cases she had brought involving her goats; and That plaintiff's goats, with very limited exceptions, were in good health, were well-nourished, had access to plentiful clean water, were appropriately sheltered, had access to spacious exercise and grazing areas, received veterinary care when and where appropriate and were loved and well cared for by plaintiff, their devoted caretaker; and That plaintiff's goats are entitled to special protection as participants in and contributors to the Mothers Milk Project, a pro bono public-interest charity devoted to public health and education; and I That DOAG lacked probable or any other proper or sufficient cause to search plaintiff's property and seize all her goats. 58. Beginning prior to 8 AM on March 10, 2021, defendant DellaRocco and other defendant DOAG agents and members of the defendant Redding Police Department converged unannounced on plaintiff's property and committed the following acts of deliberate animal cruelty: A They forcibly removed an estimated 65 goats belonging to plaintiff without her knowledge or acquiescence and without proper legal cause based on a search and.seizure warrant fraudulently secured by defendant DellaRocco; and The forcible removal subjected the goats, who were accustomed to a loving home that provided security, peace, comfort and all their needs, to a time of terror, high anxiety and stress, including two-hour high-speed travel in crowded, unsafe conditions, all of which contribute to ill health; In their ignorance and disinterest, defendant DellaRocco and his DOAC accomplices wilfully separated kid goats from their lactating mothers, thereby depriving them of all the benefits nature intended them to receive as they had received under plaintiff's care for their entire lives and critical nurturing to enhance their well-being and good health; and In their ignorance and wilful disinterest, defendant DellaRocco and his accomplices denied plaintiff's ability to communicate vital facts of each goat’s medical and social history to them to enable them to provide necessary medical and therapeutic care to them during their illegal seizure from their home; and In their ignorance and wilful disinterest, DellaRocco and his accomplices repeatedly denied and ignored plaintiffs requests that she provide them with medications prescribed by a licensed veterinarian as necessary and critical to their treatments and good health and well-being, thereby depriving the goats of the good and devoted care they had been receiving; and In their ignorance and wilful disinterest, DellaRocco and his accomplices refused to communicate with plaintiff so as to discover the true facts as to their medical and physical care, ongoing upgrades to the property and shelters and the provisional, temporary nature of many of the feeding and housing arrangements due to concessions to the weather, namely, the delay in altering and/or upgrading some of these arrangements until the heavy snow and ice cover receded and temperatures warmed to enable such work to be carried out efficiently. 59. Upon information and belief, plaintiff's goats have been confined in over- crowded conditions to small stalls at the Large Animal facility operated by DOAG in Niantic, Connecticut, where they have been subject,to the following acts of wilful and deliberate abuse and cruelty to animals: ( A. They have been held captive in small and overcrowded stalls apparently lacking in water and hay supply; and B Goat kids still in need of nursing for their good health and well-being and in need of their mothers’ presence for nurturing have been wilfully separated from their mothers and thereby deprived of these necessities’ which they enjoyed without interruption or interference at their Redding home; and The goats have been illegally photographed and offered for sale and/or adoption in an apparent “goat black market” operated by DOAG in knowing violation of law and which has been allowed to corrupt the “open auction” procedure set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. §29-329a(i), thereby subjecting plaintiff's goats to auction and/or sale and consequent acts of uncontrolled barbarism, terror and deliberate animal abuse and cruelty. Despite continuous pleas by plaintiff for the immediate release of her goats to the safety, serenity and security of their Redding home, to the Governor of the State, the Attorney General of the State, the Commissioner of Agriculture of the State and other officials in position of power and authority whose tenure requires good-faith actions upholding the laws of the State of Connecticut, plaintiff's pleas have without exception been ignored; and On or about March 16, 2021, defendant DellaRocco telephoned said Rosa Buonomo, president of SBF Animal Rescue, Inc., to inform her that the Connecticut Department of Agriculture had decided to release all of plaintiffs goats to the care and custody of SBF Animal Rescue, Inc., in accordance with plaintiffs agreement; by his deceitful conduct and failure to effectuate the release forthwith and without delay of plaintiff's goats to the care and custody of SBF Animal Rescue, Inc., defendants DellaRocco, Hurlburt and Connecticut Department of Agriculture have consigned plaintiff's goats to unsafe, unsecured facilities with uncertain futures for no good reason when superior care is available for free, courtesy SBF Animal Rescue, Inc. and other reputable sanctuaries committed to animal rescue and lifelong care; this misconduct squanders state resources and constitutes wilful animal abuse and cruelty. COUNT ONE: Cruelty to Animals 60. Paragraphs 1 — 59 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as Paragraph 60 of the First Count. 61. Thereby, the defendants David Philip Mason, Elinore Carmody, Dennis Gibbon, the Town of Redding, Connecticut, Mark O’Donnell, Chief, Police Department of Redding, Connecticut Department of Agriculture , Bryan Hurlburt, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Agriculture and Charles DellaRocco, Animal Control Officer of the State of Connecticut, and Julia Pemberton, Redding First Selectmansome or all of them, have acted, individually and in concert, in coordination and cooperation with one another, committed and continue to commit deliberate and wilful acts of prohibited animal cruelty upon plaintiff's goats, causing them to suffer severe harm in violation of law. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests declaratory and injunctive relief in her favor terminating the State of Connecticut v. 65 Goats et al. proceedings with prejudice against plaintiff (State of Connecticut) in that suit and an award of compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $65 million. COUNT TWO: DEFAMATION 62. Paragraphs 1 through 59 of the First Count are incorporated by reference herein as though set forth herein. 63. Defendant Susan Winters (“Winters”) resides at 50 Seventy Acres Road in Redding, Connecticut; she operates an online gossip sheet called “hellonewsct.com.” 64.On or about July 22, 2020 Winters posted an article on the site titled “Goats: an ongoing issue.” 65. The said article is replete with malicious and unfounded falsehoods targeting plaintiff in a reckless character assassination and relying on false and malicious statements provided by the co-defendant Elinore Carmody. 66. Although plaintiff issued a demand in writing pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat.§52- 237 for a retraction of the false and malicious statements and the entire article, to date, Winters has failed to comply with said request. 67.Publication of said article has caused plaintiff to suffer significant damages. 68. Said conduct constitutes actionable libel. WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $10 million. THIRD COUNT: INVASION OF PRIVACY 69.Paragraphs 1 through 59 are incorporated by reference herein as Paragraph 69. 70. Thereby, the defendants, some or all of them, have wrongfully, illegally and malicious invaded plaintiff's right of privacy. 71.Such invasion of privacy has caused plaintiff to suffer harm and financial loss. WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $10 million and injunctive relief terminating defendants’ continuing invasions of plaintiff's privacy. FOURTH COUNT: HARASSMENT 72.Paragraphs 1 through 59 are incorporated by reference herein. 73. Thereby, the defendants, some or all of them, have engaged in a campaign of harassment against plaintiff. 74. Such harassment has caused plaintiff to suffer severe harm and financial loss. WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $10 million and injunctive relief against future acts of harassment. FIFTH COUNT: ELDER ABUSE 75.Paragraphs 1-59 are incorporated by reference herein. 76. Plaintiff is above the age of 60 and thereby is among the class of persons subject to and entitled to all the protections of Connecticut law prohibiting “elder abuse”. 77.Defendants, some or all of them, have subjected plaintiff to “elder abuse” as that term is defined in the Connecticut General Statutes. 78.Such elder abuse has caused plaintiff to suffer severe harm and financial loss. 79.WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $10 million and injunctive relief prohibiting future elder abuse by the defendants. SIXTH COUNT: ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE 80. Paragraphs 1-59 are incorporated by reference herein. 81. Defendants Carmody, Mason, Gibbon, Connecticut Department of Agriculture, Bryan Hurlburt, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Agriculture, Charles DellaRocco, animal control officer, Connecticut Department of Agriculture, Redding Police Department and Redding Police Chief Mark O’Donnell, acting in concert and with others, deliberately and maliciously contributed to the submission of a false and fraudulent application for a search and seizure warrant, regarding plaintiff's property, to the Connecticut Superior Court, which was granted. 82. Such warrant purported to authorize an otherwise legally impermissible search of plaintiff's home, which is private property, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which led to actions and orders issued to plaintiff by defendants Building Department, Town of Redding, Connecticut, and Health Department, Town of Redding, Connecticut, all of which are consequently unlawful and unenforceable and prohibited. 83. Furthermore, such warrant purported to authorize some or all of the defendants to search the “grounds” of plaintiffs property; in purported execution of such warrant, defendants, some or all of them, vandalized, despoiled, desecrated and exposed to the elements graves where goats had been buried on plaintiff's property in accordance with the law. 84. Given that such warrant was issued upon an application fraught with fraud, malicious intent, wilful misinformation and intent to deceive and is otherwise illegal, all acts done pursuant to such warrant were done illegally and outside the protection of the law in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 85. Such illegal search and seizure has caused plaintiff to suffer harm and financial loss. 86.WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $10 million and injunctive relief vacating said orders of the defendant Building Department and Health Department and ordering immediate release of plaintiff's goats to the care and custody of SBF Animal Rescue, Inc., as above- identified. SEVENTH COUNT: 42 U.S. CODE §1983 87. Paragraphs 1-59 of the First Count are incorporated herein as Paragraph 87 of the Seventh Count. 88. The defendants, some or all of them, have acted under color of state law to deprive plaintiff of her rights and protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, including her rights to due process, First Amendment guarantees and the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal searches and seizures. 89. Such deprivations have caused plaintiff to suffer severe harm and financial loss. WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $65 million and injunctive relief against future violations of plaintiff's civil rights as protected by the United States and Connecticut Constitutions. EIGHTH COUNT: FALSE ARREST 90. Paragraphs 1-59 of the First Count are incorporated herein as Paragraph 90 of the Eighth Count. 91.The defendants Police Department of the Town of Redding and Redding Police Chief Mark O’Donnell-knowingly and maliciously brought about the false arrest of the plaintiff in the complete absence of probable cause. 92. Such action has caused plaintiff to suffer severe harm and financial loss. WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $20 million and withdrawal/dismissal of the defendants’ arrest warrant with prejudice forthwith. NINTH COUNT: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 93. Paragraphs 59 of the First Count are incorporated herein as Paragraph 93 of the Ninth Count. 94. By such conduct as is alleged hereinabove, defendants intended to and did inflict emotional distress on plaintiff. 95. Such emotional distress is severe and is continuing. WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $20 million and declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting future infliction of emotional distress upon plaintiff. PRAYER FOR RELIEF: Wherefore, plaintiff sets forth her claims for relief as $210 million in compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive and declaratory relief as set forth hereinabove. THE PLAINTIFF 154 Highland Ave. Rowayton CT 06853 Tel. 203-313-1510 NancyBurtonCT@aol.com